What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939895 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mila Amber at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4939895?

Rent Arrears: $5,002.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939895?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10696362-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939895 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mila Amber at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4939895?

Rent Arrears: $5,002.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939895?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10696362-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939895 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939895 — net $5,002.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,002.85	Rent arrears
Net award	$5,002.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,002.85

Order

The tenancy of Mila Amber at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 on Friday 16 August 2024.
Mila Amber must pay [The landlord/s] $5,002.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing on 9 August 2024.
The background to the hearing is as follows;
On or about 7 August 2024, the tenant’s partner sent a lengthy email to Tenancy Services raising a number of issues including a request for an adjournment of this hearing.
No application had been made by the tenant to the Tribunal pursuant to s.93 of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) for representation by her partner. For the purposes of certainty, the Tribunal dismissed the adjournment application.
As the tenant’s partner was not a party to the proceedings, the information contained in his email formed no part of the hearing, nor any part in the decision making process.
The Notice of Hearing for this matter was served on the tenant by email, post and SMS. The Notice of Hearing is dated 23 July 2024. I find that this is sufficient time for the tenant to prepare for the hearing.
The Notice of Hearing recorded that the hearing would take place remotely and that the tenant would be telephoned for the hearing by the Tribunal on the telephone number recorded in the Notice.
The hearing commenced at 3.15 pm on 9 August 2024. The Tribunal telephoned the tenant twice on the number provided. Neither call was able to be connected. The Tribunal was able to contact the landlord.
The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I was satisfied that notice had been given and the hearing commenced in the absence of the tenant.
Approximately 15 minutes later, I received a notice from a court staff member at the [Event location suppressed] stating that the tenant had arrived at the court. The tenant said that she had lost her phone SIM card. I arranged for the tenant to be placed in a courtroom with access to a phone.
The hearing recommenced from the beginning so that the tenant was present during the entire hearing.
The tenant had a support person.
English is not the tenant’s first language. On two occasions during the hearing, the tenant said that she did not understand some of the language being used. Where that occurred, the concepts were explained to the tenant. The tenant took a full part in the hearing and explained her view of the application. Neither party took the opportunity to cross examine the other.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
Some background is necessary to fully understand the situation. I refer to the Tenancy Tribunal decision in TT 4886126, an application between the same parties as are before the Tribunal today. That earlier application was an application by the landlord for a possession order under s.65 RTA on the basis that the tenant was a squatter.
The Tribunal decision records; “ On [date] the High Court ordered the property transferred to the Official Assignee ([redacted]). The result was (in part): The transaction whereby [Tenancy address suppressed] was transferred by Ms Amber to [Former landlord] is cancelled, and I make an order under s 207(1)(a) of the Act that the property is to be transferred to the Assignee. Subsequently, the property was marketed for sale and the applicant here purchased it. On settlement ( 23 May 2024), the applicant became the owner as evidenced on the Record of Title, under the name of the two trustees.... The High Court order of [date] noted, regarding the rental situation: Ms Amber continues to reside at [Tenancy address suppressed] as a tenant paying rent to [Former landlord]. The rent is now $412.00 per week.
A copy of the Tenancy Agreement between Mila Amber and [Former landlord] was proffered in evidence by the tenant to the Tribunal in TT 4886126.
Importantly for the purposes of this hearing, the Tribunal in that earlier hearing held that a residential tenancy agreement existed. The applicant trust in this hearing, is considered to have been the owner since 23 May 2024 when the purchase of the premises settled. The application in TT 4886126 was accordingly dismissed on the grounds that Mila Amber was a tenant and not a squatter.
The landlord has now applied to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated. The landlord provided a rent summary recording that the rent arrears on 15 July 2024 (the date that this application was filed with the Tribunal) was $3,178.28.
The tenant said that she knew that there was a requirement to pay rent. She said that she had not paid rent for a long time and that the last entity that she had paid rent to was [Former landlord]. She said that she had not signed any form of agreement with the applicant in this hearing and as a result she did not owe them anything.
The order of the Tribunal in TT4886126 made it clear that the applicant was the owner and landlord and that a tenancy agreement existed. That order put the tenant on notice as to who her new landlord was. Despite that order, the tenant has still not paid any rent to the landlord.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $5,002.85.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939895 — net $5,002.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,002.85	Rent arrears
Net award	$5,002.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,002.85

Order

The tenancy of Mila Amber at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 on Friday 16 August 2024.
Mila Amber must pay [The landlord/s] $5,002.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing on 9 August 2024.
The background to the hearing is as follows;
On or about 7 August 2024, the tenant’s partner sent a lengthy email to Tenancy Services raising a number of issues including a request for an adjournment of this hearing.
No application had been made by the tenant to the Tribunal pursuant to s.93 of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) for representation by her partner. For the purposes of certainty, the Tribunal dismissed the adjournment application.
As the tenant’s partner was not a party to the proceedings, the information contained in his email formed no part of the hearing, nor any part in the decision making process.
The Notice of Hearing for this matter was served on the tenant by email, post and SMS. The Notice of Hearing is dated 23 July 2024. I find that this is sufficient time for the tenant to prepare for the hearing.
The Notice of Hearing recorded that the hearing would take place remotely and that the tenant would be telephoned for the hearing by the Tribunal on the telephone number recorded in the Notice.
The hearing commenced at 3.15 pm on 9 August 2024. The Tribunal telephoned the tenant twice on the number provided. Neither call was able to be connected. The Tribunal was able to contact the landlord.
The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I was satisfied that notice had been given and the hearing commenced in the absence of the tenant.
Approximately 15 minutes later, I received a notice from a court staff member at the [Event location suppressed] stating that the tenant had arrived at the court. The tenant said that she had lost her phone SIM card. I arranged for the tenant to be placed in a courtroom with access to a phone.
The hearing recommenced from the beginning so that the tenant was present during the entire hearing.
The tenant had a support person.
English is not the tenant’s first language. On two occasions during the hearing, the tenant said that she did not understand some of the language being used. Where that occurred, the concepts were explained to the tenant. The tenant took a full part in the hearing and explained her view of the application. Neither party took the opportunity to cross examine the other.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
Some background is necessary to fully understand the situation. I refer to the Tenancy Tribunal decision in TT 4886126, an application between the same parties as are before the Tribunal today. That earlier application was an application by the landlord for a possession order under s.65 RTA on the basis that the tenant was a squatter.
The Tribunal decision records; “ On [date] the High Court ordered the property transferred to the Official Assignee ([redacted]). The result was (in part): The transaction whereby [Tenancy address suppressed] was transferred by Ms Amber to [Former landlord] is cancelled, and I make an order under s 207(1)(a) of the Act that the property is to be transferred to the Assignee. Subsequently, the property was marketed for sale and the applicant here purchased it. On settlement ( 23 May 2024), the applicant became the owner as evidenced on the Record of Title, under the name of the two trustees.... The High Court order of [date] noted, regarding the rental situation: Ms Amber continues to reside at [Tenancy address suppressed] as a tenant paying rent to [Former landlord]. The rent is now $412.00 per week.
A copy of the Tenancy Agreement between Mila Amber and [Former landlord] was proffered in evidence by the tenant to the Tribunal in TT 4886126.
Importantly for the purposes of this hearing, the Tribunal in that earlier hearing held that a residential tenancy agreement existed. The applicant trust in this hearing, is considered to have been the owner since 23 May 2024 when the purchase of the premises settled. The application in TT 4886126 was accordingly dismissed on the grounds that Mila Amber was a tenant and not a squatter.
The landlord has now applied to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated. The landlord provided a rent summary recording that the rent arrears on 15 July 2024 (the date that this application was filed with the Tribunal) was $3,178.28.
The tenant said that she knew that there was a requirement to pay rent. She said that she had not paid rent for a long time and that the last entity that she had paid rent to was [Former landlord]. She said that she had not signed any form of agreement with the applicant in this hearing and as a result she did not owe them anything.
The order of the Tribunal in TT4886126 made it clear that the applicant was the owner and landlord and that a tenancy agreement existed. That order put the tenant on notice as to who her new landlord was. Despite that order, the tenant has still not paid any rent to the landlord.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $5,002.85.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939895 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939895 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions